Who’ll be the monkey in the climate change trial?
August 27, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Latest News & Views, News
Here’s a great way to “settle” the scientific debate about global warming. Put the science on trial and have a judge, not scientists, decide.
That’s the way the U.S. Chamber of Commerce hopes to derail federal plans to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) released. The LA Times reports that group is seriously proposing to recreate the Scopes Monkey Trial that so entertained Americans in the summer of 1925.
The Chamber’s Bill Kovacs thinks having a judge decide whether climate change science — supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other reputable, international scientific organizations — is true or not. Kovacs has asked EPA to hold a public hearing/trial/spectacle to end the debate about global warming science.
The Chamber hopes to rouse public opposition against a pending EPA plan to declare that CO2 is a “pollutant” that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that EPA has the legal authority to do this.
The so-called EPA “endangerment” proposal is separate from the pending plan in Congress to create a cap-and-trade program to regulate American GHG emissions. EPA chief Lisa Jackson has said her agency would not use the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions if Congress adopts cap-and-trade legislation.
However, if Congress fails to act, EPA will, and any EPA action is expected to be more onerous than a federal cap-and-trade program. Reason: EPA could directly regulate each facility’s GHG emissions, and the agency has the enforcement muscle to make noncompliance more expensive than compliance.
The Chamber hopes the climate change trial would prove that EPA hasn’t used the latest scientific analysis to support its possible regulation. The Chamber reports on its blog that the agency used secondary scientific sources that weren’t adequately peer-reviewed to justify regulating CO2 and other GHG releases. The Chamber fears that such regulation would wreck havoc on the U.S. economy. Click here.
EPA will deny this trial request, so watch for the Chamber to then ask a federal court to order this climate change trial.
Note: The Scopes Monkey Trial pitted Clarence Darrow against Williams Jennings Bryan in an evolution vs. creationism debating match. Darrow’s client was found guilty of teaching evolution.
The law was simple. Tennessee had banned teaching of evolution.
Bryan won in court, but most observers felt he lost the debate. In any case, the effort exposed him to widespread ridicule and he died five days later.
Tags: global warming, greenhouse gas, Inherit the Wind, Scopes Monkey Trial
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
September 1st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
If you could find two lawyers of the quality and oratorical skills of Darrow and Bryan, it would make great theater.
In reality, anyone who still believes global warming is a “theory” also is a member of the Flat Earth Society (not the t. Friedman variety).
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Josh, It is not that global warming is a theory. It is easy to tell if the globe is warming or not. The question and the debate should be about what is causing the globe to warm, if it indeed is doing so. I DO NOT beleive that the causes are man made. Therefore, no amount of legislation is going to prevent it! What are we to do? Outlaw exhaling?
Furthermore, I am old enough to remember the the big fer in the 1970′s when all the so-called scientists were fearing another ice age!
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Josh, I’m with Mark. I, too, remember the ice age scare. Additionally, there are a large number (thousands) of scientists who disagree that the global warming experienced in the previous decade or so were man made. Further, it appears we are now in a cooling cycle. World wide the temperatures have been on a decline since the year 2000. Hence many are now using the term “climate change” instead of “global warming.” The apparent cause of these cycles are sun flares or storms, which are now rare compared to the previous couple of decades. It appears to me the “chicken little” scares such as Y2K and global warming have more to do with money and politics than science.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
What about all of the things I keep reading that US industry will not have much impact on teh environment with emerging economies such as China and Latin America?
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
So…if the US cracks down on industries here, won’t it just cause an increase in the over-seas production of goods where environmental efforts are less effective? Won’t all this hype in the US just make things worse?
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I’m with Mark and Phillip. I too remember the scientific community of the 1970′s reporting about the coming ice age.
Regardless Josh, do a little “experiment” of your own and watch your local weather forecast for the next couple of weeks. Pay particular attention to the record high and low temps for each day. IF we were experiencing true global warming, how do you explain 10, 30, or 50 year-old high temp records? Better yet, explain any record lows that occurred in the last decade.
Much like the “flat earth” scientists of the 1400′s, I suspect that the current scientific community will discover that it is allowing itself to be misled.
September 4th, 2009 at 8:54 am
It seems to me that many here really are living in 2009 – the day and age of everything “right now”. Well, the thing with global warming or climate change is like all things “statistics”; you have to look at it from a distance. You have to look at it over a LONG period of time. No matter which way it goes, you will always have records highs or lows here and there for specific dates. News = sensationalism; everything is the highest this, the smallest that, the best something else… Catch your attention, sell more papers, get more viewers.
The scientists that are pro-glabal warming base their judgement on the fact that the fluctuation in AVERAGE annual temperature has increased as much in the last 100 years as it normally did over a period of thousands of years. In short: the AVERAGE annual temperature is/was going up. And fast!
Now, huge steps have been made since the 70′s to make industries cleaner. The water quality of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence sea way is already much better than it was in the mid-80′s and whether those efforts were made with the environment or people’s health in mind does not really matter… bottom line is that it pays off! And I am sure there were tons of companies screaming at the top of their lungs that the costs of treating water would drive them bankrupt. Does any one want to go back to discharging raw sewage and chemicals in the rivers and lakes? I don’t think so.
So the efforts put forth in the past decades will probably show their effects in the next few decades… Not right now. Not this coming winter. Maybe we already have reversed the trend but either way, it’s not a reason to stop. Just the fact that you can see, from your own eyes, the smog over the big cities should be enough to justify doing something more. What we are doing now is clearly not enough yet.
Finally I want to hit the “Liberty/Freedom” subject simply by the following statement: your neighbor’s rights and freedoms stop when they start infringing on yours. Right? This works both ways and now more than ever on a global scale. And it’s not for others to do so but every single one of us.
September 4th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Josh, I too remember the 1970′s ice age. It wasn’t near as cold as I thought it would be just judging from the predictions I had saw on the news. I am pretty sure we the global warming is not going to as bad for us as you might think, as you are probably aware, global temps peaked in 1998. At the high point in 1998 we were still lower than at least 9 other times in earth’s history. Amazingly enough we survived each of these surges in temperature. Now this week the farmers almanac came out with our winter projections, and fortunately we are in for one of the coldest winters in history from the Rockies to the Midwest. I realize that I am not a trusted scientist, but I am a pretty good at figuring things out. I hope this information has begun to calm your troubled soul but if you would like some independent confirmation please check out this website where over 31000 scientists have come together to call the dreaded global warming B.S. http://www.petitionproject.org
September 4th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Global Warming, aka Climate change is about ripping the common person off. Follow the money. The so called scientists that support GW are gettin huge research grants to “study it”. Al Gore is set to make millions if not billions with the carbon trading market he set up. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:07 am
At one time watching this whole thing unfold was amusing, unfortunately now that the facts of the last few hundred million years are being ignored by numerous politicians and the news media it is not so funny anymore.
It is interesting that both sides have argued using the same facts, with of course omission of certain facts that don’t support the arguer’s point of view. When it comes down to it no matter what is decided or who decides it the world is going to do what it wants and we cannot change that. For millions of years, yes even before the human race existed there was global warming and global cooling, our presence on this planet will not change that.
We have allowed ourselves to be so over-regulated that common sense is almost a thing of the past. Hopefully we will not destroy ourselves in arguments over how to change or affect things that are beyond our ability and current knowlege.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I tend to believe that if someone tells you “The debate is over. This is the way it is.” or “If you don’t believe in this your just stupid”, they probably know they can’t win the argument so they avoid it and insult the doubters. If the EPA has all this overwhelming evidence that what they believe is true, let’s see it. Let’s debate it. I’m not afraid to defend my beliefs and show evidence. Are Global Warmists??
September 4th, 2009 at 9:53 am
M. Gauthier,
I agree we need to take care of the earth, but lets not use junk science to do so. You say we need to look at the big picture, Okay, heres a great overview.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf
And don’t forget the thousands of scientists at http://www.petitionproject.org/
September 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Sad state,
I will repeat (thank God for cut and paste)
“the fact that the fluctuation in AVERAGE annual temperature has increased as much in the last 100 years as it normally did over a period of thousands of years.”
So yes there will always be the natural cycles that did occur in the past. But from what we know, it happened in the order of 10,000 years. Not a few hundred. That part is not natural.
The problem is not that things change. But change becomes a problem for ecosystems when it happens too fast… faster than species can adapt. Nothing guarantees us that humans will not be the next dinosaurs.
The human population is now growing faster and faster not to say exponentially. And with it, the number of houses, cooking fires, cars and factories. Everything we do to support the modern life style uses more energy per capita than ever before in history. No matter how small you think we are compared to this planet, collectively we do have an influence.
Ex.: Commercial fishing of Newfoundland’s Great Banks of cod existed for over 400 years without signs of any shortage of fish. But after WWII the advent of technology and the “industrialization” of fishing reduced the resource by 90% and pretty much killed this commerce… in only 20 years! 20 more years of bad decisions (too little corrections too late) almost entirely wipe out the remaining cod population with only about 1% of original population left. It is yet not sure if the cod will ever recuperate or die off.
This is just ONE example.
We do have the means to provoke our own destruction. Let’s prevent what we can by acting on the things we control.
In the end it really does not matter if you believe in global warming or not… or even if it happens! You need to realize and admit that if you would not want a certain factory in your backyard, maybe you should not want it at all, anywhere.
Let’s at least not make things worse.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
As far as data, I looked at the Petition Project. That is one source (actually 132 of them that I obviously did not all verify one by one). It is well made and somewhat convincing but leaving me with the feeling of an underlying agenda. This happens when someone tries to convince a little too hard.
You can also see some other facts and numerous links to different reports from long lasting official organizations. Start there and see how far you want to go. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Don’t embrace one opinion or another. Go the hard way and see more than one source and make your own opinion. It could be anywhere in between.
But in the end, refer back to the last 4 lines of my previous post.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:34 am
M Gauthier
interesting points you make however they are based on fantasy not fact. Since the human “civilization” has only been around for the last 10,000 years (and that may be stretching it), semi accurate tempature readings for about 150 years and most importantly our ability to measure temperatures for (stretching again) the last 40 years it is not possible to make claims about how quickly or slowly things happen. As stated by others I also remember the 70′s and the global cooling scare that the educational institutions tried to inflict on the youth, I am one of them and this has made me a little cynical about the whole debate.
Science is great and I have great respect for Scientists, however, much like the Media unless bias is kept out of the process the truth will not be known, it is to easy to ignore the info that does not conform to the theory.
Now since theory is in the mix lets consider some other theory’s: Have we so contaminated our planet that we are causing global warming on the rest of the planets in the solar system or could it be the sun is in (or was in) a warming cycle, no way to test that theory long term. Since global warming is out of control how is the last decade explained since the average global temperature has declined.
I also find it interesting and telling that the one website you indicate for looking at facts is an EPA government site (yeah i’m going to believe the liberal, enviromental sifted info there). I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities and will not pigeon hole my thinking into only one catagory unless there is overwhelming evidence which to this point there is not.
Now just a reminder for you from you: “Don’t embrace one opinion or another. Go the hard way and see more than one source and make your own opinion. It could be anywhere in between.” Try looking into sources other than those approved by the Government, this is still a free country, for now, and maybe you to can become a cynic to the misinformation that is being provided to us.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am
M Gauthier,
Looking to the EPA on climate change is like looking to China for occupational health and safety standards, you ain’t going to find any good information. Please refer to graph number seven on this pdf one more time and tell me how seriously are we to take this slight spike in temperatures that happened over a decade ago now.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf
And now we have a record cold winter being forecasted for most of North America.
We are so, so small in the equation.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:58 am
This is not about politics.
The EPA is just the place to start. Click on the links for each subject, and then their links, pretty soon you will be far enough from the EPA. There is data from all around the world. From people that don’t care one bit about the US politicians and their agenda.
By the way, the EPA was created by Nixon… a republican.
The EPA by many lately because it did not prosecute nearly as many between 2002 and 2006, and the liberals are saying they are not doing their job. It’s hard to please everybody!
As far as science being able to determine precisely what temperature it was just yesterday or currently you will have people arguing that “they” have the “real” number. But everyone with a minimum of laboratory experience will tell you that the “exact” number is only exact in the course of that one experiment. What counts is the trend; because the same sample studied with the same method/lab/instrument/people will give different results. Statistics are true at one condition: you have a population (of samples) large enough and spread over time.
There are many ways of calculating historical temperature and amount of CO2 in the air and when you have multiple methods that are showing the same trends… it is hard to argue. But you can. Like many have said here, it’s a free country.
I agree with you 100% on one thing:
The major factor influencing the warming/cooling of the planet is the sun. But not only its activity. The earth’s orbit variations does have an even bigger influence because a few weeks of sun extra activity will change things at that moments but not nearly as much as thousands of years of the earth being closer or farther from it. It’s not a new theory. Read more there: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/
And a little cut and paste again: “In the end it really does not matter if you believe in global warming or not… or even if it happens! You need to realize and admit that if you would not want a certain factory in your backyard, maybe you should not want it at all, anywhere.”
And may you have a wonderful warm day because it’s been the rainiest and coldest summer we had in Wisconsin in at least 8 or 9 years. Sounds a bit contradictory? Not really. Re-read the part about statistics, trends and thousands of years…
And I will not reply anymore because it takes up too much of my time. I am not that quick of a typer.
Good day.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:04 am
[...] a trial to judge the science used to justify limiting GHG emissions. Chamber Vice President Bill Kovacs asked EPA to model such a trial on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial over whether evolution or creationism should be taught in [...]